Plus I still have not seen anybody dispute my stance that we treat illegal aliens like kings.

I did.

Because you're totaly wrong.

Kings do not toil away in fields doing back breaking work while earning little money.

You should really look up the word "king" and find out what it means.

Well really where else on planet Earth can you go where the law forbids you to and get a job, give birth to a child for free, get a drivers license, collect welfare and use other social services paid for by TAX payers, get a free education, receive free health care, protest the laws of country you are in, spit on the flag of that same country all while littering on your way in, paying little or no taxes and not being a citizen.....and then sue for said country's authorities for trying to stop you from bringing illegal drugs into the country.

The only thing we don't give illegal aliens is a throne and a crown.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:Not sure what you mean by "cannot be convicted of any crime", if you do not enter this country through designated channels and ports you are entering illegally, that is a violation of federal law, not sure how you can misconstrue that.

There's nothing to misconstrue. Being in this country "illegally" is a civil violation, not a criminal act. They get put into holding cells or detention camps before being deported, but I do not believe there is anyone serving a federal sentence solely for the crime of illegally crossing the border.

FUDU wrote:Well really where else on planet Earth can you go where the law forbids you to and get a job, give birth to a child for free, get a drivers license, collect welfare and use other social services paid for by TAX payers, get a free education, receive free health care, protest the laws of country you are in, spit on the flag of that same country all while littering on your way in, paying little or no taxes and not being a citizen.....and then sue for said country's authorities for trying to stop you from bringing illegal drugs into the country.

The only thing we don't give illegal aliens is a throne and a crown.

lol.

I love the fact you try to lump all illegals into your file there, FUDU. They all do those thing? None of them work hard trying to make a living? Americans do the exact same things, the only difference is they were lucky enough to be born on the "right" side of the fence.

Anywho, have fun with your quest. It was a fun debate, but for me it's run it's course.

FUDU wrote:Well really where else on planet Earth can you go where the law forbids you to and get a job, give birth to a child for free, get a drivers license, collect welfare and use other social services paid for by TAX payers, get a free education, receive free health care, protest the laws of country you are in, spit on the flag of that same country all while littering on your way in, paying little or no taxes and not being a citizen.....and then sue for said country's authorities for trying to stop you from bringing illegal drugs into the country.

The only thing we don't give illegal aliens is a throne and a crown.

lol.

I love the fact you try to lump all illegals into your file there, FUDU. They all do those thing? None of them work hard trying to make a living? Americans do the exact same things, the only difference is they were lucky enough to be born on the "right" side of the fence.

Anywho, have fun with your quest. It was a fun debate, but for me it's run it's course.

Never said all of them, but how can you argue against lots or most of them, the numbers are too staggering to suggest a few. But honestly my point still stands CDT, there is not place another on Earth an illegal alien can get treated that well. Relatively that is getting treat pretty damn awesome. Finally you revert back to the completely misunderstood and almost moot point most apologists make (not saying you are an apologist) about being born on a certain side of the border. Neither you nor I nor Juan Doe has an ounce of control over where they are born. Hence neither you nor I should be held responsible for that fact.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

jfiling wrote:Fine. There is no way to have a rational discussion here (and I'll admit I melted on that idiot who is now on my ignore list). It really doesn't matter that "illegal immigrants" actually cannot be convicted of any crime, which is why "undocumented" makes more sense. Keep on keeping on, I guess.

I have not weighed in on this because, frankly, I have nothing intelligent to add (what else is new?). But, I would say that this is one of the most rational discussions I've ever witnessed over the ether, and I feel more informed for having read it.

Indeed jfiling, keep on keeping on. To be sure. Please don't dismiss this as irrational because everyone isn't agreeing with you.

He was more than likely shot by smugglers employed by Mexican Drug Cartels, probably the AFO. At one point they put $10,000 bounties on BPAs. The AZ law doesn't do anything to stop drug trafficking.

No it might not, the story was posted though in reference to an LEO officer doing his job, using his on the job experience and judgment, and what does he get to show for it after being correct, a near death experience. Nothing racial or controversial about why he suspected these guys. We won't hear much about those instances though in which the law works as intended.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Said Cleveland Indians coach Sandy Alomar Jr., whose team trains in Goodyear, Ariz.: "Certainly I am against profiling any race and having sterotypes, but at the same time my feeling is what does baseball have to do with politics? Let the politicians stay in politics and the baseball players play baseball."

I don't know about this law but, enough is enough and it is time for a change. I don't care if all of Mexico migrates to Texas. Just do it legally, pay taxes, and try to learn the laungage.

I think part of the problem is that you can't talk about the illegal immigration problem (and it is a problem) without being accused of being a racist. I'm not a racist. I just want you to come in to the country legally and to not bring any chupacabra's with you.

hermanfontenot wrote:You're a libertarian, right, jfiling? Small, unobtrusive government and all that?

How "libertarian" a government do you think we're going to end up with if we keep importing third-world peasants by the millions? How libertarian are the governments in the countries they come from? How libertarian are the voting habits of these people?

Why do people seem to think we can radically change the demographic and socioeconomic structure of this country and just go merrily along? When has it ever worked that way?

Being a libertarian means embracing individual liberty as the highest priority, as long as that liberty does not cause harm to someone else. Small government generally is a consequence of that goal, but it isn't the prime mover. Many libertarians (including me) consider a strong national defense to be necessary to preserve that liberty.

However, I don't discriminate who is worthy of maximizing their liberty solely based on which side of a line on a map they were born. If they are coming here with the intent to harm people here, then that's different.

Finally, if you have a group of people fleeing from a government with restrictive laws that prevent them from having a chance of improving their lot in life, why would you possibly think that they would come here just to try and enact the same laws? Also, we do have the Constitution, which, although perverted beyond what many libertarians (including me) in regard to giving government powers the Founders never imagined, still exists as a framework which stands as a bulwark against your fears of immigrants turning the US into the same third-world mess they fled from.

Being a libertarian means embracing individual liberty as the highest priority, as long as that liberty does not cause harm to someone else. Small government generally is a consequence of that goal, but it isn't the prime mover. Many libertarians (including me) consider a strong national defense to be necessary to preserve that liberty.

However, I don't discriminate who is worthy of maximizing their liberty solely based on which side of a line on a map they were born. If they are coming here with the intent to harm people here, then that's different.

Finally, if you have a group of people fleeing from a government with restrictive laws that prevent them from having a chance of improving their lot in life, why would you possibly think that they would come here just to try and enact the same laws? Also, we do have the Constitution, which, although perverted beyond what many libertarians (including me) in regard to giving government powers the Founders never imagined, still exists as a framework which stands as a bulwark against your fears of immigrants turning the US into the same third-world mess they fled from.

J, I just think you are being inconsistent with your application of logic in regards to living in a society of laws, especially a society like America which was built on the ideal of a person being all they can be with hard work and effort.

I know we've kind of worn this out J, but IMO there are half a dozen angles, if not more, to concretely argue the case against the issue of illegal aliens migrating here. Yet there is really only 1 argument that can be posed in anyway shape or form for that same illegal migration, which is simply the humanitarian angle. That angle requires almost completely ignoring the reality of the world we live in and the laws which govern that world. Not to mention that angle of arguing comes nowhere close to being solid enough to stand up against all the other arguments that are based in the context of today's world with today's problems.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

But California Education Code § 48950 deliberately gives students more protection than the First Amendment does. And the high school’s actions, if they were reported accurately, would violate that statute:

(a) School districts operating one or more high schools ... shall not make or enforce a rule subjecting a high school pupil to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside of the campus, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment ....

(b) A pupil who is enrolled in a school at the time that the school has made or enforced a rule in violation of subdivision (a) may commence a civil action to obtain appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief as determined by the court. Upon motion, a court may award attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action pursuant to this section....

(d) This section does not prohibit the imposition of discipline for harassment, threats, or intimidation, unless constitutionally protected....

(f) The Legislature finds and declares that free speech rights are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations.

The “time, place, and manner regulations” restriction doesn’t apply here, because the restriction here was justified with reference to the content of the expression (and the supposed harm that it might cause). Time, place, and manner regulations must be unrelated to content, and focused instead on matters such as noise, blockage of hallways, and other effects of speech that don’t stem from the message that the speech communicates.

The School needs to STFU. Kids go to school with US flag shirts on and the school sends them home. Great idea. It's not like they were there to learn or anything.

I remember in high school all 4 years on MLK day these fags that called themselves "Confederate Cowboys" would all wear Stars and Bars shirts and shit, and every year they would be sent home. I always thought that was stupid, they have the right to be retards.

They weren't wearing a flag; they were wearing clothes with the flag design.

Also, the flag code doesn't have any backing in law (i.e.- there is no penalty for violating it) or in the Constitution, which is why, for example, it is legal to burn on in protest, or wipe your ass with it, or whatever.

They weren't wearing a flag; they were wearing clothes with the flag design.

Also, the flag code doesn't have any backing in law, which is why, for example, it is legal to burn on in protest, or wipe your ass with it, or whatever.

A right I served honorably to defend.

For the record, it is also illegal according to the UCMJ to represent oneself as holding a rank in the military higher than that which was actually earned. Far more illegal than disrespecting the flag.

I'm just tweaking ya, by the way. Unless I'm actually talking to the ghost of a WWII 5-star general.

They weren't wearing a flag; they were wearing clothes with the flag design.

Also, the flag code doesn't have any backing in law, which is why, for example, it is legal to burn on in protest, or wipe your ass with it, or whatever.

A right I served honorably to defend.

For the record, it is also illegal according to the UCMJ to represent oneself as holding a rank in the military higher than that which was actually earned. Far more illegal than disrespecting the flag.

I'm just tweaking ya, by the way. Unless I'm actually talking to the ghost of a WWII 5-star general.

Funny you should bring that up, I got the nickname the day I joined the Marine Corps. A buddy, upon hearing of my decision says, 'you're the general now'. People (not intelligent ones) would question me first about my Vietnam service (I am 48) and then ask how long I have been a general. It has been good for lots of laughs and wild lies. S far as the 5 star deal, if your going to lie, lie big

They weren't wearing a flag; they were wearing clothes with the flag design.

Also, the flag code doesn't have any backing in law, which is why, for example, it is legal to burn on in protest, or wipe your ass with it, or whatever.

A right I served honorably to defend.

For the record, it is also illegal according to the UCMJ to represent oneself as holding a rank in the military higher than that which was actually earned. Far more illegal than disrespecting the flag.

I'm just tweaking ya, by the way. Unless I'm actually talking to the ghost of a WWII 5-star general.

Funny you should bring that up, I got the nickname the day I joined the Marine Corps. A buddy, upon hearing of my decision says, 'you're the general now'. People (not intelligent ones) would question me first about my Vietnam service (I am 48) and then ask how long I have been a general. It has been good for lots of laughs and wild lies. S far as the 5 star deal, if your going to lie, lie big

For what it's worth, I have no problem with it, and I thank you for sharing that cool story.

They weren't wearing a flag; they were wearing clothes with the flag design.

Also, the flag code doesn't have any backing in law, which is why, for example, it is legal to burn on in protest, or wipe your ass with it, or whatever.

A right I served honorably to defend.

As much as I hate seeing it done, this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I do think tho that there should be no assult charges pending should The General or myself decide to thump said protestor a few dozen times with a pistol butt, just because.

Let's see here:

Non-violent protest: legal, and protected by the Constitution."thumping" someone with a pistol butt: assault, and never a protected action barring self-defense.

Yeah, you are quite the scholar. Between all of your nonsense in this thread and your scintillating analysis of how Eric Mangini is destined to fail because he is fat I'm surprised you aren't working on the next generation of particle collider, because a genius of your nature is totally wasted in the limited realm of a message board.

Do you really think you won anything with your post or are you just pissed that I don't see and speak the same redundant la la land PC crap as yourself?

And aren't you the guy who got kicked out of the Army cuz you couldn't fuking hack it ?

chile....please. You ain't earned the right and I piss on your opinion of me, yet I'll hold back on voicing my opinion of you....or have I already done so?

If you were the chat board intellectual you think ou are you would have addressed my conservative republican tendencies and asked why I'm not in favor of a flag amendment when some of those whose politics I agree with wrap themselves up in it

...but yir not...so you didn't....and I won't...cuz yir stoopid

Hope is a moment now long pastThe Shadow of Death is the one I castKoo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus

Fire Marshall Bill wrote:A few days ago you posted to everyone you had me on ignore.

Were you lying? Are you a serial liar? A chat board poseur?

Do you really think you won anything with your post or are you just pissed that I don't see and speak the same redundant la la land PC crap as yourself?

And aren't you the guy who got kicked out of the Army cuz you couldn't fuking hack it ?

chile....please. You ain't earned the right and I piss on your opinion of me, yet I'll hold back on voicing my opinion of you....or have I already done so?

If you were the chat board intellectual you think ou are you would have addressed my conservative republican tendencies and asked why I'm not in favor of a flag amendment when some of those whose politics I agree with wrap themselves up in it

...but yir not...so you didn't....and I won't...cuz yir stoopid

I saw your stuff because I was logged out of the board. Nothing else you've said above is worthy of a response.

Lemme guess, a picture of a bunch of immigrants and illegal aliens with signs, flags from everywhere but the U.S., while laying down in the middle of public streets screaming about "their rights" and how hard they work.

My question to them is, why aren't you at work now?

...and don't even get me started on Ozzie Guillen.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

I was merely attempting to rid myself of a troll in the most courteous manner I could muster.

Its unfortunate that the discussion has been interupted by a teenager who can't seem to discern the difference between the fact that I am not in support of a flag amendment despite my conservative leanings and military experiences...and the fact that on the inside I would be seething and would like to go 'clubbing'

IMHO that the board is better served when he is busy making sure the drive thru window doesn't get backed up.

I really had no idea till now how far into his simple little mind I was. My apologies for dragging out his execution

We may now get back to FUDU boring us to death....

Hope is a moment now long pastThe Shadow of Death is the one I castKoo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus

Haha, I started thinking about it and it just wasn't worth it. I'd rather talk Cavs than Mexicans.

But for your pleasure it was PR. Of course they want to be handing out American flags by the fist full out there. I've seen a lot of immigration rallies and they dont look like that. I'll just leave it at that.

Edit: This is what I saw

Distinct difference between the two. I am not saying it isn't smart to be out there waving an American flag, it just doesnt match with my experience.

http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/004928.html Found this as well. Kinda interesting. I suppose it all depends on who does the organizing and how smart they are. Like I said my experience is first hand and what I remembered.

Reading these two type of stories together makes blood boil, as I've stated many times in the past, if our reps vanished, whether from alien abduction or flat out bloody murder I wouldn't lose a second's sleep. A lynching in D.C. could raise a lot of money IMO.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

The heart of the law (the "controversial part") was OKd, overall just seems like a strange, almost dysfunctional ruling. EOD nothing is going to change for a long time b/c the Feds are going to turn a deaf ear to AZ.